Comparative role of various methods of estimating between study variance for meta-analysis using random effect method

被引：7

作者：

Pathak, Mona ^{[1
,2
]}

Dwivedi, Sada Nand ^{[2
]}

Thakur, Bhaskar ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] Kalinga Inst Med Sci, Div Biostat, Bhubaneswar 751024, India

[2] All India Inst Med Sci, Dept Biostat, New Delhi 110029, India

来源：

CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY AND GLOBAL HEALTH | 2020年 / 8卷 / 01期

关键词：

DerSimonnian & Laird method; Coverage probability; Meta-analysis; Hazard ratio; Random effect method; HETEROGENEITY;

D O I：

10.1016/j.cegh.2019.06.011

中图分类号：

R1 [预防医学、卫生学];

学科分类号：

1004 ; 120402 ;

摘要：

Methods of synthesizing the effect size is guided by observed heterogeneity. As a convention, fixed effect method (FEM) is used for low/no heterogeneity. However, random effect method (REM) is used for substantial heterogeneity. But, synthesized (i.e., pooled) effect size under REM also relies on the method used to estimate between study variance along with within study variance. There are various methods to assess between study variance to be used under REM. Accordingly, present study compared existing methods of estimating between study variance on the basis of coverage probability and precision in order to find preferred method of assessing between study variance. Data from a systematic review and meta-analysis for various outcomes involving varying extent of sample size and heterogeneity was used. Hunter and Schmidt method and DerSimonnian & Laird method were found as preferred methods to estimate between study variance.

引用

页码：185 / 189

页数：5

共 50 条

[21] Detecting Gender as a Moderator in Meta-Analysis: The Problem of Restricted Between-Study Variance
Aulisi, Lydia Craig
Markell-Goldstein, Hannah M. M.
Cortina, Jose M. M.
Wong, Carol M. M.
Lei, Xue
Foroughi, Cyrus K. K.
PSYCHOLOGICAL METHODS, 2023,
[22] Inferences about the between-study variance in meta-analysis with normally distributed outcomes
Tian, Lili
BIOMETRICAL JOURNAL, 2008, 50 (02) : 248 - 256
[23] Confidence intervals for the between-study variance in random-effects meta-analysis using generalised heterogeneity statistics: should we use unequal tails?
Jackson, Dan
Bowden, Jack
BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2016, 16
[24] Confidence intervals for the between-study variance in random-effects meta-analysis using generalised heterogeneity statistics: should we use unequal tails?
Dan Jackson
Jack Bowden
BMC Medical Research Methodology, 16
[25] Analysis of T-RFLP data using analysis of variance and ordination methods: A comparative study
Culman, S. W.
Gauch, H. G.
Blackwood, C. B.
Thies, J. E.
JOURNAL OF MICROBIOLOGICAL METHODS, 2008, 75 (01) : 55 - 63
[26] Statistical properties of methods based on the Q-statistic for constructing a confidence interval for the between-study variance in meta-analysis
van Aert, Robbie C. M.
van Assen, Marcel A. L. M.
Viechtbauer, Wolfgang
RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS, 2019, 10 (02) : 225 - 239
[27] Shortcomings of an approximate confidence interval for moment-based estimators of the between-study variance in random-effects meta-analysis
Hoaglin, David C.
RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS, 2016, 7 (04) : 459 - 461
[28] Avoiding zero between-study variance estimates in random-effects meta-analysis (vol 32, pg 4071, 2013)
Chung, Yeojin
Rabe-Hesketh
Choi
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2014, 33 (04) : 720 - 720
[29] Assessing the Goodness of Fit of Phylogenetic Comparative Methods: A Meta-Analysis and Simulation Study
Jhwueng, Dwueng-Chwuan
PLOS ONE, 2013, 8 (06):
[30] Detecting Heterogeneity of Intervention Effects Using Analysis and Meta-analysis of Differences in Variance Between Trial Arms
Mills, Harriet L.
Higgins, Julian P. T.
Morris, Richard W.
Kessler, David
Heron, Jon
Wiles, Nicola
Smith, George Davey
Tilling, Kate
EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2021, 32 (06) : 846 - 854

← 1 2 3 4 5 →